Show newer

@ekaitz_zarraga

(not ENTIRELY my fault... 🤣 )

@codewiz @Xipiryon @suetanvil@mastodon.technology

@Xipiryon

Actually, I think that this is the real answer to the @ekaitz_zarraga's question.

I don't know about , but GCC's (huge, overwhelming) complexity is mostly due to the supported combinations of

- languages
- architectures
- operating systems
- optimizations
- diagnostics / debug
- internationalization

Reading this from top to bottom might give you an insight: gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.

is not just a compiler but the Compilers Collection.

It tries to maximize the possible use cases, including several niches and corner case that are simply not considered by simpler C compilers.

Why?

Well, there is obviously an ideological aim: providing through an high quality compilers suite to everybody, no matter how peculiar are their needs (to reduce the attack surface from proprietary software).

But there is also a reasonable architectural goal: maximize the reuse of a large high quality code base that is common among the various combinations of need.

The price of this is a huge complexity, due to the tensions between different perspective on how computing should work.

I don't like such complexity (really, I hate it), but it's very short-sighted to blame it without understanding the overall vision that GCC pursuits.

@suetanvil@mastodon.technology @codewiz

@zatnosk

Because they are NOT implemented in C.

GCC is has been (re)written in C++

@ekaitz_zarraga

@drwho

I'm not.

As long as the implemented behaviors are properly documented, undefined behaviours can be useful hooks: don't forget that C is a language designed to be used in a wide variety of use cases: portability is valuable in many of them, but sometimes is not relevant at all.

@Feufochmar @RadicalEdward

Shamar boosted

In an early version of the C compiler gcc, when the pragma directive was introduced, it took the "implementation-defined" effect literally and tried to launch computer games.

@maupao

C'è una profonda differenza fra andare dove ci sono persone in catene per liberarle e mandare persone a farsi incatenare o sponsorizzare/normalizzare i carcerieri.

Essere su e per raggiungere le persone che vi sono intellettualmente recluse è necessario. Ma bisogna spingerle fuori.

Non si può linkare (ovvero alimentare con i dati di tutti i visitatori che non usano uMatrix) un sistema di sorveglianza e poi non condividerne "il modo di comunicare".

L'unico modo per usare questi sistemi senza esserne usati è postare link a contenuti esterni.

@filippodb @madbob@mastodon.technology

@dpwiz

On January/February 2020 I'm going to give a new try with some italian friends (after a decade or so...).

May we ask you some questions if in throuble? Do you have any specific reading to suggest?

I mean beyond gnunet.org/en/use.html and docs.gnunet.org/handbook/gnune

Shamar boosted

It appears I'm the first who updated their #GNUnet nodes to 0.12 release. :pensive_party_blob:

Can only see my other* node in connection monitor.

* With another one recompiling at the moment.

Shamar boosted
Shamar boosted
Shamar boosted

"Today, the difference between a programmer and a nonprogrammer is that the programmer was told to overcome obstacles while the nonprogrammer was told to give up."

@enkiv2

Shamar boosted

Rv8 – RISC-V simulator for x86-64
rv8.io/

(submitted by lelf)

Shamar boosted
Shamar boosted

@Blort join the #VOICE group and test with us! Reports on the tests we've done so far are (or will be) here:
hub.libranet.de/channel/voice

But TL;DR based on my experiences so far ...

@ekaitz_zarraga

I guess we are all programming bitches, after all... 😂

Shamar boosted

First successful run of --version in , 🎉

...

5 seconds later, first crash of GCC in Jehanne.

@r

As for BSD we are apparently reading different pages. Here's my source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_lice

"Some releases of BSD prior to the adoption of the 4-clause BSD license used a license that is clearly ancestral to the 4-clause BSD license. These releases include 4.3BSD-Tahoe (1988) and Net/1 (1989)."

Plan 9 had a more complex (and somewhat sad) history, because LPL 1 was "almost free but not quite". Yet the point was that operating systems exists that were developed independently of GNU tools.

As of today Plan 9 (and in particular ) is probably the only general purpose operating system out there who can really claim to be GNU-free (and it somewhat does it).

Even today comes with several tools.

So in a way I think it's fair on GNU side to resist to this new wave of embrace, extend and extinguish.

@yolo @georgia @leyonhjelm @freemo

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.